However we'll tell it to hash slightly more data than we put into the buffer. With these instructions PHE will crunch all our input and attempt to hash some more. At that point it hits the protected area, trigges an exception, saves current intermediate status into the memory and calls the exception handler well, not exactly and not exactly in this order, never mind ;-. Doing some testing, it seems that it never completes if the file is larger than the input buffer, i. So from what I've found, there's no particularly ideal way to feed xsha1 in chunks.
By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service , privacy policy and cookie policy , and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies. Does anyone know of an efficient way to calculate a SHA1 hash in chunks? Kara 3, 10 41 Thanks a lot for the response!
Nani Sha & Others vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors on 16 May,
Do you have any sample code? I'm unable to get it to work unfortunately - please see: I've managed to get the hack working added comments above. Thanks for the update! I didn't notice it, since I don't get any notification, but happened to look at this today. This version didn't have any partial hashing info presumably because it was before the Nano. The link on VIA's site is still dead, but I managed to grab a copy from archive.
Aside from setting EAX to -1, there's actually one other thing required for partial hashing - the data size must be a multiple of 64, and the size sent into XSHA1 ECX must be divided by Haven't done a full check, but this appears to give me stable results at least. Clever hack, but I don't know about the performance penalty of doing this.
I've changed EIP to RIP and removed the byte padding despite what the comment says, having it makes it fail for me. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google.
Sign up using Facebook. Learned counsel very fairly agreed that had there been a It will, therefore, have to be found as to whether there was a quota of For this purpose it would be worthwhile to see the language of Rule 5 before its amendment.
- Press question mark to see available shortcut keys?
- Financial Supply Chain Management (German Edition).
- Oeuvres de Mathieu Auguste Geffroy (French Edition);
Rule 5 before it was amended was as under:. Save as provided in Rule 17, appointment to the service shall be made by the following methods, namely:. Provided that nothing in this rules shall preclude the Governor from holding a vacancy in abeyance or filling up on officiating basis in accordance with the provisions of these Rules. Learned counsel further suggests that even in respect of the promotees the words "such substantive vacancies" in Sub-Rule b would indicate only the substantive vacancies which have occurred from time to time in the authorized permanent strength of service and remained after the vacancies are filled up by direct appointees.
Nana On-Sha
To substantiate this argument our attention is invited to the amended Rule 5. We find that all that is added by the amendment is the proviso which is to the following effect:. Learned counsel Shri Nair, however, tries to suggest that the aforementioned addition of proviso is only by way of a clarification and, therefore, this Rule should be viewed with retrospective effect and it should be viewed as if quota was always there even earlier.
Considering the plain language of the unamended Rule there can be no dispute that earlier what was contemplated by Rule 5 was only "substantive vacancies which occur from time to time in the authorized permanent strength of service". The Rule does not contemplate that there shall be a separate quota for the two categories from out of the cadre strength.
The condition of the two categories having When we see the plain language of the proviso that position becomes all the more clear. Atleast from the plain language of unamended Rule 5 we are unable to see any quota being there for the two categories much less in the ratio of On this backdrop when we see the chart of vacancy position, it is apparent that on 1. Thus there were in all 43 posts which were occupied and 11 posts were vacant. For some reasons which are beyond our imagination, the posts of promotees were never filled and remained pending right from upto It seems that ultimately in as many as 12 posts were filled in by promotions and right upto 1.
nani:nan:nen
The posts of the promotees which had dwindled upto 9 then became 21 with effect from 3. This was obvious because of the promotion. There can be no dispute that the government took unnecessarily long period to effect the promotions. Apparently, there is no reason for this with the government.
However, the fact remains that till , the promotees were never promoted and direct appointees were already working in the cadre on the available posts right from Under such circumstances, if the seniority of the direct appointees was honoured in comparison to the promotees, we do not think there was any error committed by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench.
- Santiago 5:5 CBTNTPO.
- Marked II: The Resistance?
- Romeu e Julieta (Avulso) (Portuguese Edition)?
- The City Beneath Her: A Strange Story of Horror, Abuse and Apocalyptic Evil.
- JOHN 1 - All The Bible Teaches About.
This takes us to the question of retrospective effect of the Rule. It was tried to be impressed upon by the learned counsel for the appellant that Rule 5 a would operate retrospectively as its nature was clarificatory. It was tried to be further impressed that even the government has treated, right from the beginning that there was a quota and it was only to redress the injustice done to the promotees that the government passed the impugned Resolution dated 20th May, Firstly, we must clarify that there was no evidence put before us by the Government that it was all through treating, even before , that there was a Such an evidence was bound to be put before the High Court in the first instance which was not so put.
The exercise done on 20th May, appears to be not a suo motu exercise on the part of the government but on the basis of the representations made by the present appellants. We can understand if the government had made this exercise of 20th May, on its own, that would have given credence to the arguments that the government had always been treating that there was a That document is not before us and we have no way to find out as to whether it was put before the High Court to support an argument that the government was always under the impression that there existed a quota.
On the other hand the DPC viewed that there were some posts which were bound to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes candidates and they were bound to be treated as backlog vacancies to be filled up as per points roster and it is for this reason that the posts were to be filled up by the appellants. So far so good, but we completely fail to understand that even when there were backlog vacancies how was the government justified in giving a retrospective effect from 2. There is no justification whatsoever of giving the retrospective effect.
We, therefore, endorse the view expressed by the High Court that there was no necessity of giving the retrospective effect. Reverting back to the effect of the proviso, we do not find anywhere any such intention to apply the proviso with retrospective effect.
In order to make a provision applicable with retrospective effect, it has to be specifically expressed in the provision. We do not find such an expression in the said proviso. Nothing had stopped the government before amending the Rule to word it specifically, making it retrospective. That was not done and we are not prepared to hold that the Rule is retrospective. Secondly, we cannot countenance the argument that the Rule has a clarificatory nature.
The Rule, for the first time, creates a quota and thus crystallizes the rights of the direct appointees and the promotees which was not there earlier.
It, therefore, cannot be viewed as a clarificatory amendment. Again whether the amendment is clarificatory or not would depend upon the language of the provision as also the other Rules.
Contribute to This Page
We have examined the Rules which did not suggest that there was any quota existing as such. On the other hand we see Rule 25 which is a Rule regarding seniority and more particularly Rule 25 c. It is apparent from the language of the Rule that the government thought otherwise. Rule 25 c is as under:. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. Therefore, one thing is certain that the appellants did not have right to claim a retrospective seniority particularly over and above the respondents who had been working in the post of ACF right from July, Dinesh Kumar Sharma [ 1 SCC ] has clearly held that the seniority is to be reckoned not from the day when the vacancy arose but from the date on which the appointment is made to the post.
There this Court was interpreting Rules 17 and 21 of the U. Government Servants Seniority Rules,